Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
retical approaches to the 'after natural' that for all their differences also share some
basic traits. For example, they are generally processual views of the world: they see
reality as unfolding or becoming, rather than being composed of fi xed and stable
structures to be revealed. They often draw upon a minority philosophical legacy,
which has been at odds with Cartesian foundations from the start (see Watts, 2005).
Marxism, poststructuralism, phenomenology, expanded notions of ecology ('new
ecology'), are just some of the approaches drawn upon.
All bring valuable insights to the after nature project, yet also differ in their angle
of their 'attack' on the binary world view. I sketch out each one in turn. As I do so
I consider some areas of similarity and difference between them, and some of their
comparative strengths and weaknesses. But the point is not to see these positions
as simply exclusive or contradictory. These approaches can (to varying degrees) be
drawn upon pragmatically in pluralist research frameworks. Theories are tools,
possibly useful as we approach the
complexity
of the after nature world. We might
need many to work effectively. Just as we see the world as an increasingly entangled,
complex process of becoming, so our forms of knowledge (need to) become entan-
gled and creative in response. Inter-disciplinary and inter-theoretical approaches are
becoming increasingly common within, and between the natural and social sciences,
and arts and humanities.
New ecologies
Since it was developed by the 19th-century German biologist Ernst Haeckel, ecology
has been regarded as one of the natural sciences and a branch of biology. It studies
interactions between organisms and their environment including interactions within
and between species, groups, and individuals. It has multiple forms centred on
population, community, ecosystem, behavioural, and spatial dynamics. This diver-
sity is instructive because once the principle of establishing connections and relation-
ships within the natural world was established many differing paths of inquiry
presented themselves as vital.
Mostly, but not exclusively, ecology has focused on the nature side of the nature/
culture dualism. However, given its focus on relationships, it has increasingly moved
towards a thoroughly relational view of life. In so doing it has drawn in other dis-
ciplines such as geography, genetics, chemistry, and physics in order to effectively
map webs of life. In effect ecology, in its tracing out of those vital connections, has
bumped up against the limits of the nature/culture world view.
Ideas of 'new ecology' seek to trace life in its various forms and connections
across the nature/culture divide
and
to question long established ideas of nature as
separate and a stable world of equilibrium, harmony, and balance. In their place
new ecology stresses 'disequilibria, instability, and even chaotic fl uctuations in bio-
physical environments, both natural and human impacted' (Zimmerer, 1994,
p. 108). This raises fundamental questions about the limits to ecosystem predict-
ability, management and control. More emphasis is placed upon the importance of
spatial, scalar, and temporal variation, and on complexity and uncertainty within
ecosystems. This involves a rejection of the view of nature as a separate realm into
which human life simply intrudes, and inevitably corrupts, distorts, and lessens,
along with corresponding ideas of 'fi rst nature' and 'second nature'.
Along with a greater emphasis on disequilibria in new ecology there is a (related)
assumption that systems are more open than closed, with leakage and fl ux between
